ReviewJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2017
Review of the current status of radiation protection in diagnostic radiology in Africa.
Review in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic reference levels in Africa: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.African health sciences · 2025Review
- Occupational radiation exposure dose and associated factors among radiology personnel in Eastern Amhara, Ethiopia.PloS one · 2023Article
- Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.The Lancet. Oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to review the available published studies from African countries on patient doses and medical radiation protection and identify strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. Papers on radiation doses to patients published until 2016 pertaining to studies in African countries were reviewed. Radiography, interventional radiology, computed tomography (CT), and mammography modalities were covered. In radiography, the entrance surface air kerma values were below the established diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, European Commission, and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Patient and staff doses in interventional procedures were not on the higher side when compared with other published reports from developed countries. The dose length product values in CT in many situations were higher than established DRLs. In mammography, the variations of clinical image quality and dose to standard breast between African countries and other countries were insignificant. In conclusion, like in any continent, not all countries in Africa are active, but some have produced good results. The potential for optimization of radiation protection using simple and inexpensive techniques has been demonstrated. The lack of medical physicists is one of the important challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.